Information icon.svg Voting in the 2023 RationalWiki Moderator Election is now closed. Results to come!

Essay talk:Why "Free Energy Suppression" is theoretically impossible

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Your thesis can be trivially disproven by looking at the current energy market with the concept of ERoEI (energy returned on energy invested.) Of unsustainable energy sources, only natural gas and coal have a net-positive ERoEI; Most others, such as petroleum, biofuels, and nuclear (with the possible exception of still-experimental plutonium breeders) are ERoEI liabilities. In effect, the latter portions of the “energy” industry are effectively battery-like storage mechanisms at best (a common, if dubious, justification for gasoline,) and parasitic vectors of fiscal embezzlement on the former at worst (corn ethanol is probably the most blatant example.)

Since neither practicality nor profitability appear to be of the slightest concern to industry, some alternate motive must stand behind their behavior. I would suggest political power, either absolute levels, or more likely its relative security.

Even in this light, however, I will admit that concealing a parallel shadow industry of “free energy” to fuel ALL conventional “sources” in an artificially sustained front to hide negative ERoEI, even within the byzantine pipework of the whole energy economy, would be almost impossible. (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I love the second paragraph of the post above. Indeed - since when have energy companies wanted to make a profit? Name any energy company or country in the world that's wanted to make a profit out of producing energy. Can't do it, can you?--The soul of the unicorn (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Making money from the energy sector, and making money by making energy, are not always the same thing; further, if most economic profits in the energy sector are from energetically unprofitable products (which they are,) then the cost of these “lossy” products must be paid for by other sectors of the economy absent any energetic recompense. This means the energy sector, viewed as a single part in the greater economy, is a money pit, so the reason for its continued existence as it presently operates must be for reasons other than direct monetary profit. (talk) 10:48, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The first law was determined by induction, not deduction (or at least hypothetico-deductive). Sterilesig.svgtalk 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)